‘Zero Dark Thirty’ Filmmakers Defend Their Story of Osama at the D.C. Premiere

At the Washington, D.C., premiere of 'Zero Dark Thirty,' director Kathryn Bigelow, screenwriter Mark Boal and former Senator Chris Dodd tried to quash criticisms from lawmakers who say that the movie miscasts history.

Zero Dark Thirty, Kathryn Bigelow’s account of the Osama bin Laden hunt, has been causing drama on Capitol Hill. The latest scene took place Tuesday at the Washington, D.C., premiere, when director Bigelow, screenwriter Mark Boal and former Senator Chris Dodd tried to quash criticisms from lawmakers who say that the movie miscasts history–particularly the role “enhanced interrogation techniques” played in leading to bin Laden’s death.

The film opens with scenes depicting waterboarding and ends with the Navy SEALs‘ dramatic, successful raid on a certain Pakistan compound. Last month Senators from both parties–John McCain, Dianne Feinstein and Carl Levin–sent a letter to acting CIA director Mike Morell requesting details about the CIA’s involvement in informing the plot, which they believe gives too much credit to such practices. Two days later, Morell posted a statement to CIA employees on the agency’s website: he said any impression that “enhanced interrogation techniques” were “the key” to finding bin Laden is false but also noted that some intelligence used to place bin Laden in Abbottobad “came from detainees subjected to enhanced techniques.” His statement only led to renewed calls from the Senators for more clarity from the CIA, while many more Congresspeople offered their own moral and historical beliefs.

On Tuesday night, Bigelow emphasized the fictional bent of her practice. Taking questions on the red carpet, she repeatedly told reporters that her film is “not a documentary.” In a statement she read to the audience before the film showed, she acknowledged the “national conversation” that the film had started and emphasized that she “tried to bring this story to the screen in a faithful way.” Even so, she argued, all the relevant details spanning the decade between the 9/11 attacks and bin Laden’s death were likely known to no one. Boal doubled down on the artistic-license defense in a live Q&A with ABC News’ Martha Raddatz after the film. “The research was over there in a pile, and I had to write a screenplay, make a movie,” he said. “The goal was to capture the essence of the underlying reality.” He too said that there was no single “underlying reality” of the bin Laden story that anyone, especially people with strong political ties, would agree on.

Both are fair points: arguing about “enhanced interrogation techniques” and the role they’ve served during the “war on terror” is inevitably done without all the facts, and the larger ethical debate contains grey areas. The issue is a perennial third rail in D.C., a reality demonstrated by protestors who had gathered outside the Newseum, where the film was shown. Some were dressed as detainees, draped in orange jumpsuits with black bags over their heads and arms behind their backs; they stood silently in front of a sign that read “cruel, inhuman and degrading.” Code Pink activists held a sign that read “Women say NO to torture.”

When Dodd, now head of the Motion Picture Association of America, made his case for the film, he also argued that those “bickering” should understand that Zero Dark Thirty is just a movie–one that’s really about the dedication of civil servants who doggedly tracked down the world’s most wanted man. But as he started to pontificate about the power of films to affect society at large, he inadvertently supported the critics’ case. “How many people changed their views on [HIV/AIDS] because of Philadelphia?” he said. “How many people’s views of anti-Semitism changed because some people in Hollywood made a movie called the Gentleman’s Agreement?” Legislators concerned about the film’s message are worried about a similar question: “How many people’s views of ‘enhanced techniques’ will be forever shaped by the dramatic depiction in Zero Dark Thirty?”

The precise fidelity of the film to its sources is unclear–and is likely to remain so: when Raddatz asked Boal who he spoke to when researching the plot and which parts he fictionalized, questions that the Senators are investigating too, Boal did not give specifics. And he’s not the only one holding cards to his chest. Democratic Senators on the Intelligence Committee, which Feinstein chairs, produced a 6,000-page, still-classified report on the CIA interrogation program that the panel voted 9-6 to adopt last month.

In his statement, Morell said that the “CIA interacted with the filmmakers through our Office of Public Affairs but, as is true with any entertainment project with which we interact, we do not control the final product.” Others familiar with the CIA interrogation program have said that the reality “bore little resemblance to what is shown on the screen.” Americans do get their impressions of what the CIA is like from films, and the opening scenes of Zero Dark Thirty unfold after a note informing viewers that the story is based on first-hand accounts. Still, most moviegoers also know that “based on a true story” accounts must be taken with the many grains of salt in their tub of popcorn.

The movie was based on a COMPLETE LIE. Theyconveniently changed the story of how he died DOZENS of times. Then they conveniently take his body to a ship, were the crew has nomemory of seal team 6 bringing the body or dumping it overboard. There is no such thing as an Islamic Burial at sea.The deceased are to be buried within 24 hours, in the GROUND!!!.

Just so happens, that ANY PHOTOS that may have came from the scene are PHOTOSHOPPED, and prove to be fakes with olderphoto's of Osama with blood photoshopped in.

Then, the ALL of SEAL TEAM 6, just happen to get put on a OLD Chinook helicopter and BLOWN UP, while on base, THEN themilitary says “OH, terrorist must have sneaked on a HIGHLY SECURE BASE, and planted a bomb on the helicopter.: The terrorist had noclue when or what the seal team was going to be flying on.

SO NO BODY, NO REAL PHOTOS, NO WITNESSES. HMMM. And the white house PHOTO OPP of Obama and his lap dogs looking at video of the live feed during the so called attack, turned out to be JUST A PHOTO UP. There was no Feed coming in during the whole process, and Hillery faked her gasp, then latter said she was just covering her mouth because of allergies.

It is a FACT that there was a Duplicate North Carolina mock-up of Osama bin Laden’s compound SEE HERE..Satellite Images Appear to Show US Bin Laden Op Training Ground

That is were they actually filmed the stunt, BUT there was to many American aircraft flying in thebackground to use the film. That is also were the crashed helicopter was hit the wall during trial scenes. So they used it anyways as part of the film. FUNNY how they have photos of the Compound and crashed helicopter, but none of Osama, and they say “Oh, the Islamist would be angry if we showed the photo's” Really? You mean the same people that see blood shed every day and get ten of thousands of themselves bombed by our drones every day? You mean those people?. So if they are not mad now, then a photo of a dead man will make them mad? WOW.

Quite a nice touch having a women direct, produce and star in this war propaganda movie. Yes, Bigelow and her antique cameras do make explosions look like art but she sold out for fame. .Although, I find the movie to be an American tragedy. Ten years, billions of dollars, thousands of dead Americans, hundreds of thousand dead Iraqis and Afghans, human rights violations to find one sickly man. Go USA #1 LMAO

Eh. I thought the movie was too bland. It couldn't decide if it wanted to be a documentary or an action film. Straddling the middle is what made the movie an average film. Restrepo was a decent B movie. The Hurt Locker was a fantastic A movie. This movie would rate a C. Far too much talk about an average movie.

I love protesters. They get to put on public pity parties and enjoy their safe little soapbox and sense of superiority, all while never having had that "poor, helpless" detainee trying to gun them down in the stinking streets or blow them in two with crude roadside bombs. They want to protest the "inhuman"treatment of these people, but they didn't have to watch the guy kill three of their buddies, either. I think you "protesters" should read some books written by the soldiers who lived it so you can see how evil these "people" you pity really are. I don't give one good g_ddamm if any of them were waterboarded. I hope they were terrified for their lives.

Artistic license is one thing, but portraying or over-emphasizing an act or action is careless and cavilier and may smack somewhat of a political agenda. That said, really who cares if torture was used. However, this skewed depiction of the facts just goes to cement further, and deepen more, the prejudices and hate of those who oppose our culture. So yes, even with freedom of speech, "artisitc license" included, we all have a responsibility to protect our right of free speech by acting responsibly with that right.

How many people changed their view of how John F Kennedy died because of Oliver Stone's JFK. The answer: more than a few. But that's beside the point, do the people who will see this film care if torture was used? No.

The same people yelling about these so called "enhanced techniques" are the same people who would be blaming the CIA, FBI, and Federal Government for not doing enough to protect us if another terror plot were to succeed. Sometimes in order to protect our way of life and society from the very evil people around the world we must fight fire with fire. You can say we should be better than that and not sink to that level all you want but in the end, in order to protect the freedoms we all enjoy it is sometimes what is necessary may not be popular in the media, but it is still necessary...

I CANNOT wait to see this movie. I spent 8 years in the US ARMY as a 19K, M1A2 Abrams Tanker... I was released off Active Duty Feb.2003 after my 2nd hernia repair, or I'd just about be Retired by now... I was HONORED to be able to Deploy with my Brothers and Sisters in Arms after the Attack...

I think some people on the right want to say "No Waterboarding = No Bin Laden" (wrong), while some on the left apparently want to pretend waterboarding and EITs never happened (also wrong).

I've read more than my share on this subject over the years as well as all the books and documentaries since the raid. The article is correct that truly nobody knows 100% of what led to Bin Laden. But the movie is as close as you're going to get. If there's "classified information" in the movie, well, I certainly didn't learn anything new, and I'm just merely interested in the subject.

You liberals act as if waterboarding is such a bad thing. Why don't you whine when al qeada pushes an American onto his side and starts cutting his head off and holding it up for the camera. Go watch the Nicholas Bergman video and then tell me how bad waterboarding is!

It's funny, but most tiresome, to read the lengthy and seemingly interminable exchanges between a few of you here on this issue, debating what each other said or means to say, but not getting to the substance. Forget about whether or not "torture" or "enhanced interrogation" is effective, useful, only marginally so, or not at all. The DEFINITION, LEGALITY and MORALITY of "torture" AND "enhanced interrogation" are the only questions, once it is determined, or agreed, that some entity has used the processes for which definition is sought.

The most interesting, AND ACTUALLY A "DEFINING", question is: WHEN "enhanced interrogation" (including waterboarding, whether defined as torture or not) is even considered, WHY IS IT CONSIDERED FOR USE, when normal interrogation meeting our own civilian legal standards, is deemed ineffective or insufficient? Yes, whatever you CALL it, WHY use it? Answering that question requires the answer that it may work better than normal interrogation because it PHYSICALLY HURTS, or GREATLY AND IMMEDIATELY FRIGHTENS, or BOTH. Whether in one of our police stations, or in our CIA "black sites", if it does this it is FORBIDDEN, IMMORAL and PROSPECTIVELY CRIMINAL, however effective it may be, or not be.

Guys, this isn't rocket science. Just flag his posts, every single one, for being offensive and insulting (as they so often are). How long do you think he'll be allowed to post here with 5-10 flags attached to each of his posts?

I think we should have standards of law and warfare that our country should abide by (which we have already signed). I think it's unconscionable and incorrigible to encourage torturing prisoners of war, because it sends the message it's OK to do it to our troops too. Do we need or want to act like the people we're fighting? We're better than that.

@PhilRidge Maybe if they actually took part in serving and protecting their rights and freedoms it might help curb some of this nonsense. It's easy to stand way behind someone where it's safe and criticize their actions.

@JasonPerrone So we should make a type of movie illegal because a large portion of our population is ignorant? If it is not a documentary then the implication is, it is in part or in whole not true. Even documentaries are not always "true" they are colored by those who pay for and make the film. It's sad to think you and so many others seem willing to throw away your rights (think 1st amendment) so the state can protect you from yourselves. Grow up, take responsibility for yourself.

@prothall@PhilRidge Indeed. I didn't serve either, but my brother, father, his father before him, etc. did. I've come to understand through the experiences of others what hell they go through. Those protesters wouldn't last a day before they cried for their mommies. The first time a "bumblebee" whizzes by their head, they'd crap their pants.

Paul, Have you served a day in the military paul? I can tell you when a American military team is hit and one of their brothers is killed in a horrific way, the remaining team members, righteously so, want payback. When you have gone through something like that, then post here!

@JasonPerrone@prothall But they are not masquerading as truth it is clearly stated such films are "based on actual events" but everyone knows or should know it is still a work of fiction. As far a "lying" goes, you are lied to everyday by your government, politicians, advertisers, employers... the list is endless. It's up to us as individuals to discern the truth of things for ourselves. Giving up your rights and letting the government control what you see and hear is not the answer. They already do that enough. Read up on your history from books not published for public education

@HosagiMatissmoTaishou@akluc118 Not all intel is gathered at the point of torture, they are not captured and thrown in a tank of water. I'm not saying torture is the answer, I don't know how they use it or when they use it (I doubt you do either) all I'm saying is if they deem it necessary then I have no problem with them doing what is necessary to keep you, I, our soldiers, and everyone else as safe as we can be.

@akluc118@HosagiMatissmoTaishou I know of every major torture style out there: water boarding, chinese water torture, chinese pressure torture, electircity, vladd's water dungeon, they all amount to the same thing inaccurate intel because the prisoner will do anything to make the pain stop. Keep living in that fantasy world where everyone tells accurate info while in pain maybe one day your fantasy world will come true.

@HosagiMatissmoTaishou@akluc118 You really believe it is that black and white what techniques they use to gather information??? Hit them with a stick and dunk their head in water and demand answers?? No, there are ways to determine whether a person knows something or not.

@akluc118@HosagiMatissmoTaishou Hypothetical Situation: If I hit you with a stick demanding the location of a cache of weapons that you repeatedly tell me you have no info on how long before you tell me to stop to give me that info? The point is you would tell me to stop and give me the info i asked for even if you never saw the cache of weapons to begin with. Why? Because you would do anything and i do mean anything to make the pain stop.

Don, I do not believe in a police state and I bet you are one of the people demanding guns be banned. I think you want a police state because you were trying to get others on this site to flag someone just because they had a different opinion than you!

@JohnWoods@KevinGroenhagen@DonQuixotic That's called projection, Skippy. Tell you, what. The next time you're in my area, stop by and call my wife a mail-order bride to my face (as you have here while hiding behind a tree). We'll see how I would react to your racist comment.

@KevinGroenhagen@DonQuixotic Just read your most recent comment, Groener; no wonder everyone wants to flag you. You're an obnoxious punk who clearly wouldn't say any of these things if you actually had to say them to anyone's face. Talk about cowardice.